Akbar -

I have refereed for various statistics journals when called upon, and spending just a few hours on a paper is not something you can always count on, depending partially upon journal policy regarding rigor.  Some cases, of course, require more work than others.  A referee needs to be reasonably certain he/she understands what was done, and reasonably certain that it is correct.  That can lead to having to find and study various references.  I once found an inconsistency between a reference and the manuscript I was asked to evaluate, and the authors said that the referenced article was wrong.  I refereed an article for the International Statistical Review, and wrote 30 pages of comments on things that were wrong. 

On the other hand, I had a paper of mine held up, and I eventually did not bother to try to push it to publication, where a referee made a demonstrably, ridiculously false comment. 

With more online outlets and with conference proceedings as outlets, one may not want to bother with a thouroughly vetted journal article.  Sometimes the referees and editorial staff may have a preference for one school of thought over another, and you may not get published there anyway.  Also, if you are a government employee, as I was, there may be much more emphasis on daily work than on publication. 

However, if you are required to publish in a journal with a long, multiple peer review process in multiple stages, you can expect delays while the editorial staff finds people expert in your area willing to do the work, and go over any second draft that might be required.  It might be a lot more work than you think.  And when there are a lot more papers than people willing to be referees, I know it can be tiresome for the same people to keep being asked to help out. 

So, you could try another outlet, or you may just have to be patient.  Sorry. 

Cheers - Jim 

Respected Dr Knaub! I understand that articles need great concentrations to be reviewed and hence needs much time but it is clear that a referee that sends back the review after 3 months never read the paper daily in these 3 months, instead he/she may spent few hours of few days. Also, if the reviewer thinks that he/she has other works to do and would not be able to find tine for the review then he/she should not accept the review.

The actions per a review cycle include two editorial stages in the pre-review, and post-review processes. In the former stage the editor carefully select appropriate reviewers, then invites each of them with the hope that they accept the invitation. In the post-review stage, the editor analyse the review reports to reach a fair decision. These essential surrounding processes consume much time. In addition, at least one month is given for the reviewers (not necessary identically start and end for each of them). During this duration, the reviewers manage their time to review the article, write a report, reach a fair suggested decision, and send the reports. I guess that the minimum duration of a review cycle may be not less than two months. Therefore, three months are an acceptable duration for authors to receive a decision. The annoying is the situations in which a single review cycle takes more than five months.

As I indicated, there are likely often many more people wanting papers reviewed than there are enough good reviewers available.

This question is very controversial. Admitting a linearity in the process of peer review, one has: reception of the submission by editor, response of the editor to the author, invitation of the editor to the reviewer, acceptance of the reviewer, sending the reviewer to editor, and sending the editor to the author. It is possible to notice that there is a very complex chain and not simple analysis that was done in this question. The time allocated to the reviewer is associated with the publisher's programming. Some generally provide 15 days, 21 days or even 30 days for the reviewer to perform their task. The task of a reviewer is of extreme responsibility. It is one of those responsible for ratify, rectify or reject a future publication. Must have mastery of the subject, willingness and commitment to see the positive evolution of the material (I always try to act in this way). The reviewer should make a critical reading and gradually decipher all sections of the submitted manuscript. In a single day of task he can not get involved in the authors' proposal and may be unfair or unhappy in his opinion that he will send to the editor who will pass on to the author. Some journals are better structured and offer better working conditions in access to literature information, including showing percentage of similarity of the material submitted with the literature. Others hardly offer this situation and the reviewer must have access with his own resources in prospecting the literature. Therefore, admitting this integral chain, this period is not so great, because each party has its responsibility in this possible publication. In case of the acceptance of the reviewer in accomplishing this task and not fulfilling, then the authors have the direct right to be annoyed. Reviewing commitment should be greater than your own job that depends solely on your management. So I think I've helped a little to clarify the issue and make the authors less anxious about their submissions.

i am agree with @Dr. Francisco and Prof.james

reviewers evaluate article submissions to journals, based on the requirements of that journal, predefined criteria, and quality, completeness and accuracy of the research presented. and their decision making is very important for journal published article and repute. Most cases review work is not paid and also referee have their own row of work.

I agree with Akbar. There's been a exaggerated sense of importance given to a reviewer. The counter arguments they give don't hold water. Journals should pay reviewers better and get the job done quicker. In today's world, time has a much greater value than in the past.

Many reviewers accept to review papers when in actual sense they don't have quality time to do a thorough review at a relatively shorter period. Just be honest in accepting or refusing to review a paper if you are saddled with work engagements. I only accept to review when I know I have considerable time to do the work. Why punish authors by prolonging the review duration? It's unethical.

depends upon the quality of the journal, higher the impact , maximum time, because people prefer to publish there papers in high rank journal

Respected Dr. Dikson! That is what I want to be followed. In todays’ era.”, time‘s importance is above all. I understand that different proceedures of journals cause more time but as per my experience, the time taken only by a reviewer is almost THREE months which I think is NOT fair.

Timing of article publication is some time very important. In my old career my article was rejected, because an article was published on same topic during evaluation procedure (~ 9 months)

Very interesting, conferences are a good medium for publishing in relatively short times, as reviewers must return decisions within the time schedule of the conference.

Honestly speaking, a week is enough and 2 weeks is more than enough. If someone takes more than a month, he or she is holding science at ransom!

Actually it depends on the editorial board and their publication frequency.

I think, 30 days is enough for review process of a single paper.

As a reviewer, I never hold any article for more than 7 days.

But as an Associate Editor of a ESCI and SCOPUS nominated journal, I never found any reviewer to return any article/ comments within 1 month. Some reviewers return articles even 2 - 4 months and after sending a few e mails.

Practically good reviewer is not easily available and they are perhaps very busy in their works. Or, they do not give proper importance to the work of free reviewing.

agree with @ James R Knaub

regards

Good question and answers, may be because your research is processed in the sequence by which was delivered.

Respected Dr. @ Shibabrata Pattanayak! You are absolutely right. If they don't give importance to such review then why they are accepting the papers for review?

WELL, MY OPINION IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT.

SOMETIMES WE RECEIVE MANUSCRIPTS IN SUCH RAW MANNER THAT AFTER GIVING COMMENTS IT IS ALMOST COMPLETELY RE-WRITTEN.

Naturally this takes times.

Secondly It is not always guaranteed that you are always free from your assigned work as per your job profile.

Though, I never RECEIVED ANY REMINDER FROM ANY OF JOURNAL OFFICE TILL DATE BUT AT THE SAME TIME MY FIRST PRIORITY IS MY RESEARCH WORK BUT NOT THE ONE i.e to review paper.

So I may be able to do the review work only if i have some time over and above assigned work and naturally sometimes doing this exercise in piece meals takes couple of days or 2-3 weeks.

let us invite opinions.

THANKS

I do agree with Dr Pattanayak that one or two weeks are enough for reviewing an article and at the maximum one month is sufficient. it is the nature of some scientists that they keep it pending intentionally just to show their importance. but when an article is reviewed by two -three experts then delay is but natural.

Respecter Dr. @ Kulvir Singh! If you think that you would not get time for the review then you should think of NOT accepting the paper for review...

Prior engagements and it’s mostly a non paid service

Dear Akbar Ali

I think you have not understood the question as well as my response both.

I told that any researcher is already having prior engagements wrt his field.

No body is sitting ideal in office just waiting for some manuscript to pop up for review and readily do that instantly.

Please read my prior reply where I told that reviewing paper takes its own time and it comes on second position with first priority of your job responsibilities.

Best regards

Frankly speaking paper reviewing is a free service, and this is one of the main reason behind delay in evaluation of the manuscript.

Respected D. @ Kulvir Singh! I am extremely sorry if my words are hurtful, I really did not mean that. I understand your point and also the question is posted by me. I know that professional bussiness are more important but if a person think that he/she will not get time to review a paper within a month then I think he/she should not accept the paper for review..

Very interesting question

Dear Akbar Ali Khan,

How to be patient and why ?

Firstly, many of scientific rewiev not can to have the expertise witch is payed;

and secondly, it need the time to formed the serious opinion about the article ...

Best regards,

MTT

Agree with James R Knaub

regards

Interesting question, if you do not have time do not accept the request. As simple as that. If you agree to review take maximum 2-3 weeks.

My paper is "Under review" for over 7 months, and I am still counting days. I have written two letters to the Editor in Chief, and got the same responses__ Thank you for your message. The reviewers are working on your manuscript. If you have any further question, please do not hesitate to contact us!

Hi Akbar,

I've been a reviewer for several journals. The best answer is: "It depends ..."

For instance, although I may think I have some time scheduled to review an article, my boss might tell me that he wants something else done first, and to put aside any reviews until his work is completed... and that might take a while. In some cases, I may have a series of unexpected interruptions, ranging from students necessitating time to personel happenings off-campus that need time. In other cases, after accepting an article, I may have to brush-up my knowledge of a certain subject and refresh myself before I can do the review justice. In some cases, journals want to know whether I'll review a paper without sending me the paper -- just the abstract. So, if the paper turns out to be something that I didn't expect or that I'm unable to review, it goes back into the hopper after I talk with editor --again taking time. Additionally, I may conduct a series of reviews for the same article... I'll look at it today, and wait about a month before looking at it again so I'll have time to think about its contents and materials. In doing so, when I look again, I'll often find something that I missed when I reviewed it the first time... And many other scenarios are imaginable . . . so... "it depends" ....

Have a great day!

--Adrian

To speed up the review time, it is important that the reviewer accepts to review only the paper in which he/she has in-depth knowledge.

1. First, the Editor-in-Chief must look at the manuscript and determine if it is worth being passed on to an Associate Editor. This can take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days, depending on the state of the manuscript. Unfortunately, several authors submit manuscripts that are not properly formatted, that have several typo errors (sometimes to the point we do not even understand what they mean), and that would have needed a few more weeks/months of work before submission. Those are either rejected rapidly, or stay in review for a long time because they are not appealing.

2. The Associate Editor needs to find reviewers. This is becoming increasingly difficult. Typically, you will need to ask at least 10 (sometimes up to 20) colleagues before 2 agree (if you're lucky). When asking someone, they are generally given a week to accept or not. When you ask 10 people (2 at a time), that can easily add up to a month before the review process even starts.

3. The reviewers are often given a month to review a manuscript. Of course, the job only takes a few days, but they have to find those few days in their full schedule. Unfortunately, they often ask for extended delays and send their reviews after 6 or even 8 weeks.

4. The Associate Editor needs to read the reviews (and the manuscript) and send a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. This will take a few days, but sometimes up to a few weeks, depending on the workload of the editor.

5. The Editor-in-Chief needs to read everything (manuscript, reviews, recommendation) and send a decision. Again, you can count a few days, up to maybe 2 weeks.

Summing up all the above, you easily have 3 months... And that is if everything goes well.

If you want to put all chances on your side, submit a clear, concise, original, well-written paper and respect all the instructions for authors. Then, keep your fingers crossed...

Dear Hugo Asselin,

No offense, but I imagined if the people you are talking about are from another planet!

Some reviewers I witnessed do something strange. If they find a paper intresting, then they give that to their student for understanding and further extensions. Once they are ready with their extensions they then send the review.

This is a very good question. Why this is happen?

My research article is still under review after seven months of submission. I had written several times to chief editor. The same repose that "Your article is still under review and remainder has been sent to reviewer."

All of us face the same issue sir @ Gurpreet Singh

In some cases, the journals did not find expert reviewers (in case of multidisciplinary articles) and took longer time: my experience.

But for reviewers it should be straight forward: (i) do not accept if you cannot manage the time, and (ii) do not accept if you do not have adequate knowledge on the subject matter of article.

Respected @Imran Hanif! You are not the only victim of such cases. many of us experience such heart breaking results

Dear @Dipesh! You are absolutely right

In our University, PhD student should have a WOS acceptance to defence but the journal reviewing process up to 3 month is not acceptable!!! In my field most of WOS journal take at least 6 to 7 months for reviewing papers.

Interesting

It also beats me. Why do they take such a long time. I usually take at the maximum, 2 weeks. The reason is that I have prior commitments before receiving the paper and I do not actually start the review process until I finish with my Prior commitments. Once I start, I take 3-4 hours!

Dear Borden! I wish every reviewer to be as professional as you..

This a serious matter that needs urgent attention in the academic and research space. I review for quite some journal publishers in the field of agriculture and education. I tried as much as possible to return my reviews within 24hours and got an award as the review of the month by one of these journals. This experiences of taking months for returning reviewed manuscripts by reviewers should be addressed.

Some journals that decides to publish ones paper in 1-2years after first manuscripts submission claim to be of high impact with so much credibility.

Yes.. I totally agree with you Dr. Akbar Ali Khan..

3-4 months are very long time period Nd it’s really wastage of author’s time. If they r not ready to review then I think they should not accept the request of the same..

In my own opinion, some journal deliberately delay the reviewing process.

@Dr Oluwaseun A. Otekunrin, I don't totally agreed with you on that. I am a member of the Editorial board of some high impact journals and I discovered that most of the errors are from the Authors.

I would like to recommend these few points for Authors in order to get quick review.

1. Before papers are sent to journal for possible publication, the Authors should read through the manuscripts very well and ensure that they are free of errors

2. Papers should not always be sent to multidisciplinary journals

3. Authors should have close relationship via emails with the Editorial board and most especially the Editor in Chief or the journal assistant for regular update on their submission

4. The paper must be concise and well articulated

5. The research gap and the main objectives must be well addressed.

It would be necessary to have a regulatory body to regulate academic journals in order to stop predatory journals that publish articles without thorough review process.

While I agreed with you that the timeframe for reviewing articles should be within reasonable limit. The idea of 4-5 hours for paper review is not ideal, this can however be the best if one is only interested in checking for and correcting the grammatical blunders in the article.

Respected Dr Salami! I did not mean that a reviewer should be given 4-5 hours, my point was that a paper does not need 4-6 months to be reviewed.

My paper is rejected after 7 months and the review report reflects that the reviewer did not study my paper for more than 10 minutes..

I got the same report after 10 months.

I have the same problem with two papers. The first one was under review 13 months and it was re-submitted 2 months ago. The second, 6 months for the first review and 4 months from re-submission. I have been referee for the same journal and I don't understand why the process is too long in my case.

No its not a job of 4 to 5 hours. Peer reviewing is a matter of huge responsibility. Yes, its the author who contributes but its the invited reviewers who will accept it. Once its a accepted means the contents may be useful for society or for the readers which helps in advancement of that particular technology. Peer review needs time to read the paper many times, to check actual contributions, to check relevancy with similar works.

That is why for very novel works, every leading journals allow to submit short communication for rapid processing

The reviewers take a long time for reviewing manuscripts because they do not give it priority and also as they are busy with other jobs.